As we are to have a comparatively long adjournment, can the President make any statement as to the suggested conference between employers and employees with a view to preventing industrial disputes? This matter was mooted at Christmas, and as nothing more has been heard on the subject will he take advantage of this respite in our work to bring representatives of both sides together to see if anything can be done? We finished the last session with expressions of good-will, but nothing has been done.
CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
Is the President aware that many employers, private employers and particularly public bodies, are disowning and dishonouring national and local agreements that were entered into with regard to wages?
I am not aware of that, and as regards the other matter raised by Deputy Cooper I should say that I have been in correspondence with Deputy Johnson and Deputy Good on the question. I think that the last letter I wrote on the subject was written about a week ago, and I think in that letter I expressed the view that having had representations from the Deputies in question I was not satisfied that there was an understanding as to the subject matter of the conference. I think there was a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation. In any case, as far as I can see, something more definite should have been arrived at in connection with the conference here in the Dáil, because there were two different viewpoints. Speaking from recollection, and not having the files before me, and not having anticipated the question, I should say it was not clear to me that the conference one Deputy had in mind was the conference the other Deputy had in mind.
If there is a misunderstanding will the President try and remove it?
I think I went into that question rather fully on two occasions in the Dáil last year, or the year before. I said this is primarily a matter between the two persons concerned, the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other, or their respective representatives. To my mind at that time, and my opinion has not changed since, any understanding arrived at should be an understanding arising out of an effort on the part of these two sides. If the Government were brought into it each side would look to the Government to fill up something. That is not the sort of beginning that ought to be made. I think I laid that down more clearly on other occasions, that any move for a settlement or understanding should be between the two parties without the intervention of a third party.
Has the President ever been at a fair and seen a man trying to sell a cow, or a man trying to buy a cow, and a third party trying to get them to come together and split the difference? Does he not think that is a function the State might fulfil?
I was at a fair on one occasion and I transacted business without the assistance of a third party.
Perhaps it might be desirable, if the President and Deputy Good are willing, that the correspondence that has taken place should be published.
Would the President state for the information of the Dáil and the country whether in these discussions there is a beating about the bush between the two parties, or whether there is an indication on the part of either side to come together with the desire to lay the foundation of a better state of things?
I should say on both sides there was a profound desire to have a better understanding as to methods to be adopted. I think the differences in connection with the matter could be settled without bringing in a third party. The desire is there equally pronounced on both sides to bring about an understanding as to differences in detail.
I threw out a suggestion more than twelve months ago that this conference ought to take place in the interests of industry in the State. I renewed that suggestion in December last, and I must say I am profoundly disappointed the conference has not taken place.
In view of that statement I think I might again repeat my request that the President and Deputy Good would remove any obligation of confidence in respect of the correspondence that has taken place.
On that point I am not an interested party, and I am not going to throw my weight in favour of the correspondence being published, or against it. It is a matter of indifference to me. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by publishing the correspondence. I think the publication of correspondence which is marked "confidential" is not likely to create an atmosphere for the better consideration of such matters in the future. I think if a further effort were made to find common ground and not make a stand on certain strong feelings in the matter much better work would be done.
Of course the matter cannot be left where it is. Deputy Good has expressed grave disappointment in view of the fact that on two occasions he raised this question and nothing has come of it. The inference of the public would be that in view of no conference the responsibility would be with me. I request permission for the publication of the correspondence so that the public would know where the blame lies, if any blame lies anywhere.
I do not see that much good could come of that. There would be two points of view even after the publication of the correspondence as to who was right and who was wrong. Would it not be possible to get from Deputy Johnson and Deputy Good a statement as to whether they, on behalf of their respective parties, are prepared to meet and discuss the difficulties that have kept them apart? If the papers are published one side or the other may gain an advantage, but that is not going to get us any nearer to a solution of the problem. If there are differences, can Deputy Good or Deputy Johnson say if anything will be done towards a solution? Are they prepared to take the bold step of indicating that they will meet to discuss their difficulties?
To discuss what?
The Deputy should understand that an offer to meet was made here. The question was to meet for what purpose and under what conditions.
That is the point.